If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Can anyone explain why the US spends so much more per capita on health care yet performs so poorly against almost all developed countries? Obviously, there is something sinister about it. Maybe there are too many faked billings for services never rendered. Or maybe there are too many services that were not really necessary.
I suggest the US seek help from our Hong Kong's ICAC to find the defrauders.

same reasons why Americans spend much more per capita on badminton than people in MAS, INA, CHINA, KOR, THAILAND (and perform poorly too)

Can anyone explain why the US spends so much more per capita on health care yet performs so poorly against almost all developed countries? Obviously, there is something sinister about it. Maybe there are too many faked billings for services never rendered. Or maybe there are too many services that were not really necessary.
I suggest the US seek help from our Hong Kong's ICAC to find the defrauders.

Hi T, i suspect this also caused by the high spending by the wealthier people in addition to the unhealthy eating habits that the Americans famous about. The US is one of the (if not the) fatest nations in the world, so to cope with all the health problem the cost must also rise higher than the rest of the wolrd without necesarily delivering a better result

Cooler, let us be frank about this. The per capita spending on badminton in the US will not even register any number, hence its rock bottom position.

i mean per capita of american badminton players.
One dollar spent of healthcare goes a long way in developing countries than one dollar spent on healthcare on american soil. One dollar spent in badminton equips and training goes alot farther in those listed countries than in the US of A.

It comes as no great surprise that some lawmakers who voted for Obama's new health care bill in the US have received serious threats and abusive insults to their lives. I think the FBI is lookiing into this. Some of the posts here are not very far from such threats and insults.
Before the bill was passed the US was the only industrialized country with no universal health care. Now, it has finally left its third world health care status and joined the civilized world. For that some Americans want to kill their president? If they cannot reach their president they are now gunning for those who helped him pass the bill? Is this the US or the wild lawless land where everything and anything goes?

the big pharma is definitely supporter of obama's health bill, they stand to gain 32 million mew patients taking pills and drugs, a new untap market the size of whole canada.

I'm not against low cost healthcare to the less finanically able people but throwing in more money without fixing the whole system is just a patch up job, just like bailing out of banks and car makers. Like a morphine injection, it feels good for now but the sickness is still there.

Looking at the American health care system and where it was headed would show that the country was heading towards the demise of a country. It (health care) would reach 20% of GDP soon and it would head towards 100% in the long term.
Until recently, no president had the guts to do something about putting a stop to this madness because of lack of political will and fear of being kicked out of office. Look no further than how the votes were idnetified by the parties each belong to. One party, like lemmings without independent thought, all voted against the bill.
There are a few major players who have an impact on the costs of health care. These are the doctors, hospitals, drug makers, and others associated with health care. The American people or public should look no further than to zero in on these 4 sectors, who have so far obscenely milked the country without shame.
Bring in more doctors at contracted prices that are one tenth of a local doctor. Sell your hospitals to other countries' hospital authorities. Allow countries like India and Indonesia to flood your country with drugs.
But will America do this? Politicians will not. Only great statesmen can turn the tide.

Looking at the American health care system and where it was headed would show that the country was heading towards the demise of a country. It (health care) would reach 20% of GDP soon and it would head towards 100% in the long term.
Until recently, no president had the guts to do something about putting a stop to this madness because of lack of political will and fear of being kicked out of office. Look no further than how the votes were idnetified by the parties each belong to. One party, like lemmings without independent thought, all voted against the bill.
There are a few major players who have an impact on the costs of health care. These are the doctors, hospitals, drug makers, and others associated with health care. The American people or public should look no further than to zero in on these 4 sectors, who have so far obscenely milked the country without shame.
Bring in more doctors at contracted prices that are one tenth of a local doctor. Sell your hospitals to other countries' hospital authorities. Allow countries like India and Indonesia to flood your country with drugs.
But will America do this? Politicians will not. Only great statesmen can turn the tide.

Remember the malpractice lawyers.

I think some level of cause must go to the American consumer attitude. Even if something is a tiny bit wrong in a purchase, the consumer is deemed correct and money can be given back for used goods.

Of course, in healthcare, you cannot "give" health back, therefore one way is to resort to litigation. Another thing is in medicine, there is no 100% cure. There is always a statistical chance of a bad outcome. Yet one can get sued for following guidelines appropriately. So this leads to the overuse of the most expensive, latest and greatest technology/medication/programs even thought the marginal benefit is very low or even unproven. Where the conflict arises is those opponents are unwilling for those dollars allocated for health to be redistributed from areas of doubtful/unproven benefit (because of the "what if it really works?" factor) to areas of proven benefit to the less fortunate.

I suspect across the world, the majority of people interested in health would see this as a very great achievement indeed. A basic human right has been given to the people - i.e. access to healthcare.

As for health outcomes, which is what really counts, we can only wait for the evidence of any success which may take 20 years or more. As for the affordability of the bill, well so what if it is more expensive? Things were not going too well beforehand in terms of healthcare expenditure and the evidence was that it was getting worse with a marked degree of inevitability.
At least with the new bill, either, things can get better, remain as status quo or get worse. So, we do have some chance of US getting better health If the bill hadn't passed, US citizens definitely would have got things worse with no hope for improvement.

Helping the less fortunate with no medicare is a good proposition, whether it is politically motivated or of pure concience or setting a presidential legacy...we have 50-50 split of congess who agree/disagree to this bill, we have discussion between big 'Y' and small 'c' here...I look at the accounting side and I just could not understand how OB can sustain this cost by adding US$1.6trillion deficit to the national debt this fiscal year, with the current US public debt at US$12.7trillion and increasing US$4.03 billion daily.
This is only the national debt, not including the 51 states' debt...Until the year-after-year federal annual deficit can be eliminated and the budget balanced, or is OB wildly banking on the economy turning around injecting revenues to treasury, the debt will keep increasing until the US hits the wall and maybe follow Greece...and all these programs will evaporate.

The winning side claims the new health care system will reduce the budget deficit over time. The losing side thinks otherwise. Only one side can be right.
Let us see what happens.
BTW, health care is only one component in the budget. There are many leaks in the other components too. Of course almost all those leaks can be stopped and reversed easily, only if politicians have the political will.

The winning side claims the new health care system will reduce the budget deficit over time. The losing side thinks otherwise. Only one side can be right.
Let us see what happens.
BTW, health care is only one component in the budget. There are many leaks in the other components too. Of course almost all those leaks can be stopped and reversed easily, only if politicians have the political will.

why see what happens when plenty history are available to nail down the outcome? It's just common sense but these days COMMON SENSE ARE NOT VERY COMMON.

historical facts:
1. how often gov't programs come in on budget or under budget? LOL
2. health care costs going are up in every countries, are americans more healthier to make obama health bill an exception?
3. The 30 million of uninsured americans, are they a group whos health is better than the insured americans?? Personally, I think this group has the worst health.

Predicting obama's health bill going over budget is a more certain thing than Pemuda's predicting LCW losing in majors. Predicting obama health bill going to reduce the budget deficit is more off base than Xball calling LCW to win at majors.

The winning side claims the new health care system will reduce the budget deficit over time. The losing side thinks otherwise. Only one side can be right.
Let us see what happens.
BTW, health care is only one component in the budget. There are many leaks in the other components too. Of course almost all those leaks can be stopped and reversed easily, only if politicians have the political will.

1) Enron Accounting. How can you spend more money in the future and reduce deficit? Double count of income. What Owebama and DamACrap are saying that our deficit will be $X amount in the future without this bad bill. With this bad bill, we will have $(X-y) deficit at the end of 10 year (given that y is a positive number). So when the 10 yr comes, our deficit is actually $(X+Z) while Z is a large positive number. DamACrap will then say, it would be a much larger deficit (ie $X+y+Z) if we did not pass the bad bill. BullSh*t OweMama already used it on the unemployment situation.
2) You ask for an example of US gov entitlement program actually worked? I will give you 2 examples that does not work. Social Sec and Medicare.
3) Even actuaries from government say after 10 year, this bill will create $200+ in additional spending. Of course, BO only use numbers going his way. Just like any politician.

This is a very good report on the con of the current bill. I think it is a very good prediction of what is going to happen.

The winning side claims the new health care system will reduce the budget deficit over time. The losing side thinks otherwise. Only one side can be right.
Let us see what happens.
BTW, health care is only one component in the budget. There are many leaks in the other components too. Of course almost all those leaks can be stopped and reversed easily, only if politicians have the political will.

What you wrote above, you have the makings of a politician or if you are one now. All this 'winnng side' losing side' 'only this' only that' are mumble jumble Agree healthcare is only one budget component but I can guarantee you it will become the big elephant in no time. I am glad Canada has Medicare and I wish all those less fortunate to have too but the rate it is going is NOT sustainable, it will crash.
This thread and the previously banned one have been going on for a long time and all along you advocate/support Medicare, this is the first time, I heard you touch on cost/deficit. OB has this exciting dream to introducing more spending (who do not love spending, saving/deficits/debts are taboo and boring legacy afterall), yet has no idea how to balance the book, simply pass the buck to those unborn or those too young to vote who has the blessing to inherit this wonderful debt US$12.7 current debt and rising makes my head spin, even though Math is my best paper, I still could not fathom the number of zeroes or how the US is ever going to pay it of. It is like a wealth transfer to CHN and Japan forever, only saving grace for now is the interest is low. By the time "lets see what will happen"" happens, I am afraid it is too late, the debt enters the point of no return and game over. Unfortunately, when the US sneeze, we catch the cold, and that really worries me, otherwise, I am like you, talk the talk and give a flying leap to US debt.

'Cash for refrigerators' kick-starts appliance sales
by Rob Lever Rob Lever Fri Mar 26, 12:10 pm ET
WASHINGTON (AFP) – Americans are lining up to snap up rebates for "cash for refrigerators" and "dollars for dishwashers," as part of a government program aimed at both economic stimulus and reduced emissions.

The effort, modeled after the "cash for clunkers" auto trade-in program, includes nearly 300 million dollars to encourage consumers to dump older appliances in favor of newer, energy-efficient models.

US officials say the effort, a small part of the nearly 800-billion-dollar economic stimulus measure enacted last year, will help reduce the US carbon footprint because of the heavy electrical consumption of big appliances, and at the same time pump money into the economy that can create jobs.

One one level, the program, which is being administered by individual states, appears to be succeeding in jump-starting sales.

In Iowa, which offered rebates up to 500 dollars on refrigerators, washing machines and dishwashers, the 2.7 million dollars in federal funds was exhausted in less than a day by stampeding consumersMinnesota needed less than three days to give out five million dollars in appliance rebates.. Duhhhhhh

In Ohio, which launched its program Friday with 10.5 million dollars, the state agency administering it said it "anticipates the rebates will be exhausted in a few weeks."

As of this week, New York still had 5.6 million dollars remaining from its 18.7 million dollars even though some waited in line on the opening weekend.

"It's been a boon to consumers and retailers," said Francis Murray of the New York State Energy and Research Development Authority.

The biggest of the state programs will be launched in California April 22, with 35.2 million dollars. And more states will be launching rebate programs in the coming months.

To qualify for rebates, consumers must buy appliances which meet energy standards set by the federal government and are up to 30 percent more efficient than existing models. Some states are offering extra rebates if consumers recycle old appliances.

Some see the program as a natural follow-up to the "clunkers" program, which boosted new car sales, and in turn lifted auto production and jobs to help pull the US economy out of its slump.

Economist Ryan Sweet at Moody's Economy.com said the appliance program probably had an impact on sales and orders for durable goods, big-ticket items expected to last at least three years that are critical to the manufacturing sector.

"Eight states launched rebate programs last month, which would help explain some of the strength in sales at both electronic and building material stores," he said.

"This also argues for strong gains in subsequent months and lends some upside risk to our forecast for real durables spending."

Joel Naroff at Naroff Economic Advisors said that while the clunkers program appeared to have a positive economic impact, the effect of the appliance program may be far less. He said the impact may be reduced even more for appliances made outside the United States.

"On a 600 dollar washing machine, the retailer may make 100 dollars but the manufacturer will make 300 dollars," he said. "But if the manufacturer is on the other side of the world, that's 300 dollars that goes out of the economy."

University of Delaware economists Burton Abrams and George Parsons argue that both the clunkers and appliance programs are lemons for taxpayers, mainly because they are destroying otherwise productive assets.

The auto program, the economists say the societal loss was as much as 2,250 dollars per vehicle because "the value of resources used exceeded the value of resources created. In effect, we shrank the economic pie to improve the conditions of some workers and perhaps some sectors other than labor."

For appliances, they say the overall loss is more modest, at six dollars for every 100 dollars invested.

"In essence, the taxpayers... are putting 100 dollars into the pot on behalf of society as a whole," they concluded. "Society gets back nine dollars in environmental benefits. People who buy refrigerators, on average, get 85 dollars in value from the cash transfer. The other six dollars is lost to everyone."